Messages - preppyak

The fact that the 17-55 has come down quite a bit in price actually makes it competitive with the 3rd party options that take up the f/2.8 crop space.

I cant imagine an updated 17-55, with new IS, STM, better sealing, and better optics (as all Canon updates have) going for anything less than the original list of the 17-55. Which was $1179. Cant see the market for it over $800 with options like the Sigma 18-35, and a lens like the (full-frame) Tamron 24-70 going for around the same price.

A true Cinema body could have about 12MP... and then when used to shoot video, it would mask down to 8-9MP. (Exactly what the Sony A7S is/does). So you can still get great low light stills but have a perfect pixel for pixel capture of true 4k with no bining. But if they do actually produce such a machine, they need to get it out sooner than later and make sure they allow it to have a TRUE clean HDMI output

I think Sony is on the right path with their A7 line, they just havent actually supported it with lenses like Canon and Nikon have. But, the idea of a high MP studio/landscape cam, a more general workhorse (wedding/sport/event), and then a low-light video/street cam is a pretty smart differentiation. I'd settle for 12MP stills if it came with ISO performance like the A7s.

May have taken a few years longer than necessary, but, seems Canon is coming around to a decent strategy

This does not seem right. Going with the lower MP sensor is not the trend in any camera development. Even Rebels now have more than 20MP. This would present a severe segmentation of 5D market with some people left without the ovarall well rounded camera body like 5D III and 5D II were.

See the Sony A7s. Went to 12MP to get the best possible low-light for video and stills shooting. Canon has their big MP monster, and the 5DIII will still exist...but, if they want to target the video community, something that comes close to the A7s in low-light and 4k internally would be a pretty huge leap for Canon.

Combo'ing that with 12fps would make this an even bigger jump than the jump between 5DII and 5DIII

Canon will service grey market cameras and magic lantern does not void the warranty.

This. Magic Lantern is easily removable before sending it in to get work done, and I've yet to hear mass reports of Canon denying service on grey market items (unlike some other camera manufacturers who wont touch them)

Also, you're saving $300 off the usual grey-market deal price I've been seeing. That basically covers a repair from Canon or an independent shop as long as its not the shutter or sensor that need replacing

I especially like the Goldilocks analogy. And as great as the 7D is, it is still more of a specialize camera, where as the 70D, with flippy screen, touch screen, etc. seems like it might appeal more to a boarder audience.

Yep, I like the frame rate of my 60D vs what the T2i/T3i had at the time, but, I do enough landscape and night work that not having the swivel screen of the 60D vs the 7D was a dealbreaker.

Also, there's price considerations as well. I gladly paid $1-200 more than a T3i for the build, top LCD, and other features of the 60D. But, i wasnt ready to pay $5-600 more than a T3i for a 7D. That's an extra quality lens right there

And, just because you can make a camera smaller doesn't mean it needs to be smaller.

Yep, and with heavy/large lenses, the camera body being small is actually an impediment. Good luck using something as big as the 70-200 on a mirrorless body and not having your hands cramp up after 2 minutes.

When I shoot action sports in the field (meaning I had to take the camera with me on the water, etc)...then I take my smallest kit and accept its limitations (slower AF, slower apertures, <fps). Otherwise, I want the most that I can get out of it, so, no reason to limit myself with what mirrorless currently is.

I am excited for the point where mirrorless AF is fast enough at the entry camera level that I can use it. Would love something as small as the Sony Axxxx line that performed like a Canon xxD does now

@Liv_Img: If you compare the FD 1.4, "new FD 1.4" and the EF 1.4 they have the exact same design, # elements, minimum focus distance, cost, etc.

Yep, as someone who uses the FD SSC version for my micro-four thirds work, I can confirm that the image quality is as good (maybe even a little better) in the old versions.

Neither is up to the standards of a 50mp sensor unless you like a certain vintage look, and so I imagine any 50mm update with be like the 24/28/35 updates to be optimized for high resolution. Of course, the trickle down is that a lens that resolves well at 50mp is spectacular at 20 or 22 or 24mp as well

Canon is going to keep being Canon. While features always move downward when new models come out, that does not mean a model is moving up scale.

Certainly, the rebels will get new features, but they will not change in price, when compared to the introductory price of the model replaced.

The price of new models will be held down by the market and in the USA, the strong dollar is pushing prices of imports down. Canon is forced to drop prices due to the low cost of gray market cameras. In Europe, the Euro is not going up in value, so prices will be more stable.

Yep, and really, if this is nothing other than Canon answering Nikon, the models align pretty well

5dr = D8105dIV = D7506d = D6107dII = ?

Kind of amazing to consider the turnaround...I think a year ago most Canon users were probably frustrated...and now, well, they would seem to have among the most versatile of DSLR options

Unless you needed the extra few mm, or have issues with flare that you cant solve with your current 11-16, then no.

The resale value on the original Tokina is not high, and the vII isnt much higher. So, you're gonna be paying $200 after selling to buy this now. And flare is basically the only thing I can think of that I dont like with my current 11-16 (but, a well placed hand takes care of that)

Does this mean it will mount to a full frame camera but fills an aps-c image not full frame?

The current 11-16's mount on full-frame and fill the sensor at 16mm. Even at 15mm with a little vignetting. So, if they havent drastically changed the optical formula, I imagine this one would work on full-frame from 16-20mm.

But there are also dedicated options for full-frame that are reasonably priced (Samyang 14mm, and Tokina has a 15-30 that they just released as well)

Well, makes me wonder if Canon will keep producing their 10-22 for much longer. Plenty of 3rd party options that are cheaper/faster, and I imagine most would go with their much cheaper 10-18 if they dont need the faster aperture

If, IF Sony had a 50mp sensor, why haven't they put it in any of their own cameras yet?

I find it incredibly unlikely that Canon would use an outside firm to design such an important sensor for such an important camera. On a point and shoot? Sure, nobody is really going to care. But people that buy those high end Canon cameras are going to want Canon tech.

Funny, I know quite a few people on the forum who would gladly take Sony sensor tech if it's better. If you're gonna drop a 50mp landscape/studio camera, it better have the dynamic range and color sensitivity to outcompete everyone else. Right now, Canon sensors dont do that.

As to your other point, Canon does have a 50mp sensor and a patent for it. It may be part of what they are sharing with Sony, who in turn is sharing some of their fabrication processes.

What's the point of having 30fps when you have video shot at 30fps? Doesn't the 1DC cover this? Or is this basically what the mirrorless cameras have, just faster? they have very fast frame bursts.. slightly confused?

The mirrorless cameras (like every other EOS with video) use a mechanical shutter for stills and an electronic shutter for video.

The problem with the electronic shutter is that is reads off line by line in a progressive wave accross the sensor.

Whilst it is easy to make the read of each individual read very fast (thereby equivalent to only being 'exposed' for 1/50th, 1/250th, 1/2000th of a second) the speed at which the scan passes over the entire chip is relatively slow.

This means that the moment of the last line being scanned is visibly behind the first and intermediate lines being scanned.

You may also have heard this being called 'jello shutter'.

If you have a dslr with video mode, do a whip pan left or right. Vertical lines become diagonal lines as the slow scan rate of the sensor is betrayed.

In a global shutter the entire frame is read in the one instant. So these diagonal lines disappear.

Now the if it's doing that to diagonal lines, what else is it doing to other details in the image?

So why is it a problem?

Well, increasingly press photographers have to also provide video, and with the advent of 4K video decent frame grabs become viable. You could fill a magazine cover with an 8MP frame grab from UHD footage.

But not if all the details are wavy and distorted.

So, there are two benefits... it will make video a lot better, rapid camera movements are now possible ...it will make video grabs a lot better too. Something Canon must see a requirement for in certain user segments.

And I think they are right.

And implement Global Shutter on a camera that shoots 4k RAW video and suddenly you have a camera that can take 8-10mp stills, in RAW, at 24-30fps. Your limitation is no longer the shutter, its the buffer.

How this works within the confines of auto-focus is, I'm sure, it's own interest problem. Its a non-issue on most 4k production cams because you are pulling manual focus anyway. But if that comes with auto-focus, thatd be impressive as hell, even at 24fps